Author Topic: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles  (Read 37548 times)

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2014, 09:37:42 AM »
Replace the long 90mm with a French 105 and you can even add some applique armour to the turret and hull front to get a pretty believable IDF Super-Duper Pershing.  :) 

That IS a French 105mm in the above mental note.  I used the same 105mm/L44 as on the M51 Sherman because the turret ring size being the same.

Unless the gun trunion relocation can be pulled off on this one, too.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 10:30:57 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Online tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2014, 10:31:13 AM »
That IS a French 105mm in the above mental note.  I used the same 105mm/L44 as on the M51 Sherman because the turret ring size being the same.

Unless the gun trunion relocation can be pull off on this one, too.
Oops, missed the French muzzle brake on your image! Silly me!  :)

A more considered development effort by the French and Israelis and the fact that the L44 was considerably shorter than the long 90mm on the Super Pershing, would have resulted in a much nicer packaging job for the new gun than the hurried effort on the Super Pershing. The trunnions may have had to be moved forward as in the M51, but the large external equilibrator and slab steel counterweights would have been eliminated and a better internal system developed. It may have required a slab counterweight welded to the aft end of the turret or a turret extension al la the M51 to balance the new gun.

Paul

Online tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2014, 10:40:19 AM »
To consider a what-if M103, I wonder what an upgraded 103 might have looked like if the USMC had kept the 103s in service until the mid 80s and wanted to field the German 120mm gun in advance of the availability of the M1A1. Replace the 103 turret with an M60A3 turret rearmed with the German 120? The overall height would have been less, the frontal area would have been reduced, both resulting in increased survivability. Add the thermal imaging system from the M1A1 perhaps and you have a reasonable interim heavy hitter.

Of course, you could also leave the 103 turret in place and replace the American 120mm with the experimental 140mm gun being developed in the late 70s early 80s.

Paul

Online Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2014, 11:11:28 AM »
The actual 120mm M58 tank gun used by the M103 was kinetically more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm gun.  If you gave it advanced fire control and updated ammunition (such as sabot rounds), it could potentially be a better weapon than the Rheinmetall 120mm.  I do absolutely love the idea of an updated M103 with a 140mm gun and either a new turret or ERA.

Cheers,

Logan

Online tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2014, 12:21:20 PM »
Shorter tube length than the M58 120 and more a compact breech with a larger casing diameter to keep the round length to something an autoloader can stuff into the breech. The turret ends up a lot lower and, perhaps, streamlined resembling the M60A2's except not as severe and the commander doesn't get that wonky cupola/turret but a lower thermal sight similar to the M1.

Turret crew of 2 with a sizable bustle holding ammo. Made with ERA right out of the remanufacturing depots to enhance survivability without investing in Chobham for this interim vehicle.

Paul

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2014, 04:12:57 AM »
The actual 120mm M58 tank gun used by the M103 was kinetically more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm gun.  If you gave it advanced fire control and updated ammunition (such as sabot rounds), it could potentially be a better weapon than the Rheinmetall 120mm.

I'd take it that people wouldn't be too thrilled with a Russian-style autoloader for this one......

How could a 70s-era tank gun autoloader be done right though?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Online Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2014, 05:35:55 AM »
Carousel auto-loaders are generally a bad idea for tanks if you care about the crew at all.  The US was playing with a number of tank auto-loaders throughout that period and the West even got a few that worked.  See the Strv 103 for a good example of that.  I think the gun would have to return to the same position after each shot or you'd have to go with an oscillating turret.  The US played with oscillating turrets in the 50s and 60s and didn't like them, so I'd imagine they wouldn't go with one in the 1970s.  You could definitely do one, though, it's not that impractical.

Cheers,

Logan

Online tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2014, 12:03:10 PM »
I'd take it that people wouldn't be too thrilled with a Russian-style autoloader for this one......
You mean the kind that stuffs your forearm into the breech? Yeah, no, not thrilled with that one. :)
Quote
How could a 70s-era tank gun autoloader be done right though?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Russian system, the Ruskies just didn't put the right guards on it and stuffed it into too small a vehcle. The M103 was definitely not "too small a vehicle".

Autoloaders for large calibre weapons were just coming on line in the 60s in the world's navies. Of course those systems were rather large, even for a 103, but a bit of work over the 10 years until our imagined upgrade could easily see a system developed.

Paul

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2014, 08:02:49 PM »
The actual 120mm M58 tank gun used by the M103 was kinetically more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm gun.  If you gave it advanced fire control and updated ammunition (such as sabot rounds), it could potentially be a better weapon than the Rheinmetall 120mm.

I'd take it that people wouldn't be too thrilled with a Russian-style autoloader for this one......

Nothing wrong with Russian-style autoloaders.  There are a great many myths about Russian autoloaders which were promulgated more to ridicule them than were actually based on facts.  The one about loading the loader's arm is a well-known but false one.  Carousal loaders have problems with safety in case of penetration but they can be fixed if careful attention is paid to isolating individual ammunition lockers and using a pressurised water jacket.

Quote
How could a 70s-era tank gun autoloader be done right though?

There were several attempts at autoloaders in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In the West, the most successful was more than likely those in the AMX-13 oscillating turrets.  The M103 and the Conqueror heavy tanks had them but they weren't reliable.  Apart from that, there were quite a few experimental vehicles.  In the East, you have the T62, T64 and T72.

It wasn't until modern electronics come along that you see them becoming reliable enough.  The need for them has also increased with the increasing calibre of tank guns.  120mm is about the physical limit for most loaders.  The new proposed and developed but yet to be accepted into service 140mm guns are beyond what most human loaders can reliably load at a sustained rate in the tight confines of turrets.

The French again are leaders in this with their Leclerc MBT, in the West and the Japanese Type 90.   With adopting an autoloader significant advantages flow on in the design of the vehicle, with the armoured volume being decreased considerably (no standing human loader means a smaller turret and hull height).  It also brings disadvantages in the form of one less crew member for other duties, which increases the out-of-battle things the remaining crew have to do.


Online Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2014, 11:51:11 PM »
By the way, for anyone wanting to spend 40 min finding out more about the M103, there's a good overview of it with a former M103 tanker.  At about 10 min in on the second video, they talk at length about the loading procedure for the 120mm gun.  That may be of interest to people with this discussion.  The M103 and Conqueror weren't really autoloaders.  They were just assisted.  They do have a series of at least 4 videos on the Conqueror, too.

Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 1


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 2


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 3


Cheers,

Logan

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2014, 05:26:39 AM »
New Iranian Sabalan tank:






The Sabalan is a rebuilt M47 Patton Main Battle Tank, which Iran has almost 170 in service.

Upgrades includes:

1. 105 mm M68 rifled gun.
2. Add-on composite Armor.
3. A diesel engine.
4. Modern fire control system.
5. Modern communications equipment.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Online Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2014, 05:50:32 AM »
I have to admit, that is an attractive upgrade.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2014, 10:20:09 AM »
And sensible too compared to a lot of their other super weapons.

Online tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2014, 10:24:17 AM »

1. 105 mm M68 rifled gun.
Note no thermal wrap!
Quote
2. Add-on composite Armor.
Sheets of drywall and plaster, perhaps?
Quote
4. Modern fire control system.
Let's say "better" fire control system. With no wrap and no muzzle reference system, it ain't modern. It may be the equivalent of the M60A1 systems in their other tanks.
Quote
5. Modern communications equipment.
Up from a No 11 set to a No 19 wireless?

Online Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2014, 10:25:51 AM »
Quote
5. Modern communications equipment.
Up from a No 11 set to a No 19 wireless?

Don't be insulting.  The TC just got an iPhone.

Cheers,

Logan